Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 214 (HP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyoti Ram

2015-03-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 2nd January, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby Claim Petition No.58 of 2003, titled Krishna Devi vs. Bhawani Singh and another, Claim Petition No.57 of 2003, titled Jayoti Ram vs. Bhawani Singh and another, and Claim Petition No.59 of 2003, titled Sambhu Ram and others vs. Bhawani Singh and another, came to be determined and compensation was awarded in all the three petitions. The insurer, by means of the present appeal, has challenged the impugned award so far as it relates to Claim Petition No.57 of 2003, titled Jyoti Ram vs. Bhawani Singh and another, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimant Jyoti Ram became victim of a vehicular accident on 9th March, 2003, at a place known as Tanihar Galu, while traveling in a Jeep bearing No.HP-37A-0458, being driven by one Brij Lal rashly and negligently, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The co-passengers, namely, Krishna Devi also sustained injuries, while Roshni Devi succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Accordingly, the claimant Jyoti Ram filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 3. The Tribunal clubbed all the three Claim Petitions together and framed the following issues: “1. Whether petitioners Krishna Devi and Jyoti Ram suffered injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No.HP-37A-0458? OPP 2. Whether Roshani Devi died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.HP-37A- 0458? OPP 3. Whether the deceased and the injured were carried in the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR-2 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR-3 5. To what amount the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents, if issues No.1 and 2 are proved? OPP 6. Relief.” 4. Claimants led their evidence. Respondents have also examined Suresh Kumar and Bhawani Singh as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. 5. If so, its effect? OPR-3 5. To what amount the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents, if issues No.1 and 2 are proved? OPP 6. Relief.” 4. Claimants led their evidence. Respondents have also examined Suresh Kumar and Bhawani Singh as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. 5. After scanning the entire evidence, all the three Claim Petitions were granted in terms of the common award, impugned in this appeal. 6. Claimant Jyoti Ram and the owner of the offending vehicle Bhawani Singh have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, the same has attained finality in so far as it relates to them. 7. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the owner has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. This appeal came up for consideration before this Court on 19th September, 2014 and the learned counsel for the appellant had made a statement that the appeal was the outcome of interim award made under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, the Act) and, therefore, was taken up and disposed of alogwith other two appeals, being FAO Nos.81 and 82 of 2007, which were also the outcome of interim awards passed under Section 140 of the Act. After noticing the error, the appellant filed review petition, which was granted and this is how this appeal came up for consideration again today before this Court. 9. Admittedly, the offending vehicle i.e. Tempo- Tipper/Jeep, was a light motor vehicle. The driver was having the valid and effective driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the genuineness of which has not been questioned by the appellant-insurer. The driving licence has been proved on record as Ex. RB by one Suresh Kumar, who has been examined as RW-1. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. 10. The appellant, in order to seek exoneration, has failed to plead and prove that the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Bhawani Singh has committed any breach. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner with the liability. 11. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. 10. The appellant, in order to seek exoneration, has failed to plead and prove that the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Bhawani Singh has committed any breach. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner with the liability. 11. The amount of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant is Rs.19,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, is too meager. It is strange why the insurer has questioned the impugned award, which is far less than the amount to be awarded under Section 140 of the Act. The Claimant, admittedly, sustained injuries in the accident and remained hospitalized w.e.f. 9th March, 2003 till 12th March, 2003, in terms of the discharge slip proved on record as Ext.P-5. 12. Having said so, the impugned award needs to be upheld and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, if not released so far.